Here we have taken the view that there are serious problems with quantum theory that cannot be ignored. The prevailing view that interpretations of quantum theory have no consequences for physics is not just wrong, you might say it is not even wrong. The standard Copenhagen approach, complete with its division of the universe into microscopic/macroscopic, quantum/classical, system/apparatus, readily admits that it cannot describe nature as an undivided whole. Surely seeking to bridge this gap is in the purview of physics. Indeed, what, after all, is the projection postulate? Is it a physical law? If it is, then it is the job of physicists to explain this.If it is not, we have argued here, based on [1]}[2]}, that it is an instance of entropic updating in the form of Bayes rule. From another point of view, if one adopts a Many Worlds, or Everettian [3]} interpretation, then what is to be made of the apparent adherence of experimental outcomes to the Born rule? Can this be derived? If not, does it make sense to look for violations? Alternatively, postulating additional microscopic variables to make sense of quantum theory, such as in the de Broglie-Bohm approach, introduces new questions, but also new opportunities, that are not present in the other dominant interpretations (see e.g., [4]}). The point is that understanding quantum theory, successful though it might be, is not an empty pursuit. Just the contrary, it is by truly fleshing out its conceptual framework that we gain the ability to ask those questions which may, in time, probe the blemishes of quantum theory and not just reify its virtues.
